Here are some of the other signal shifts that the Texas Board endorsed last Friday:

- A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” This means not only increased favorable mentions of Schlafly, the founder of the antifeminist Eagle Forum, but also more discussion of the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and Newt Gingrich's Contract With America.

- A reduced scope for Latino history and culture. A proposal to expand such material in recognition of Texas’ rapidly growing Hispanic population was defeated in last week’s meetings—provoking one board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out in protest. "They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist," she said of her conservative colleagues on the board. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world."

- Changes in specific terminology. Terms that the board’s conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, “imperialism” as a characterization of America’s modern rise to world power is giving way to “expansionism,” and “capitalism” is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression “free market.” (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America’s economic superiority across the board.)

- A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism. Disgraced anticommunist crusader Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator censured by the Senate for his aggressive targeting of individual citizens and their civil liberties on the basis of their purported ties to the Communist Party, comes in for partial rehabilitation. The board recommends that textbooks refer to documents published since McCarthy’s death and the fall of the Soviet bloc that appear to show expansive Soviet designs to undermine the U.S. government.

- Language that qualifies the legacy of 1960s liberalism. Great Society programs such as Title IX—which provides for equal gender access to educational resources—and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “unintended consequences” in the curriculum’s preferred language.

- Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

- Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader (from the left) and Ross Perot (from the centrist Reform Party). Meanwhile, the recommendations include an entry listing Confederate General Stonewall Jackson as a role model for effective leadership, and a statement from Confederate President Jefferson Davis accompanying a speech by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.

- A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements. The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.

They're teaching some legitimate history that is being whitewashed from most textbooks, I see no issue with it.

Lately, the education system has been pushing the studies of minority cultures, liberalism and completely ignoring anything that the teachers' unions and very liberal teachers do not agree with, both at the high school and secondary levels. They're going to get their liberal points of view in college, on the news, in the media, Hollywood...EVERYWHERE. I've seen textbooks that have a ton on Clinton, but ignore Reagan. They are both relevant and the events that occurred in the 1980s should not be ignored, just as other historical events should not be embellished. I've heard of schools spending more time on George Washington Carver than George Washington. They are attempting to "balance" and "create diversity" when historical facts don't necessarily support an equal relevance. It's not a hateful or bad thing that certain groups or types of people had more importance in the scope of history, it's just how things happened. History should be taught AS IT HAPPENED, no excuses. To artificially place important on certain events and individuals to try to create a racial or idealistic balance for political correctness' sake is to ruin history and teach it improperly. History is to be taught, not adjusted to fit and promote your views or belief system.

Why not teach both sides? It doesn't look like they're eliminating all liberal ideas, they'll be teaching them side-by-side.

Dropping "rap education" can only help the kids. Also, promoting assimilation to the culture rather than the rest of us learning new languages to accommodate immigrants is something that is long overdue.

There is no denying there are unintended consequences from Affirmative Action, welfare, Social Security and other Government Social Programs that have gone off-track due to corruption and waste, or have simply grown too much or outlived their usefulness.

General Stonewall Jackson, aside from his and the Confederacy's stance on slavery WAS one of the greatest military leaders of our history despite being on the perceived "wrong side" of the issue. Just because he was leading the side that we do not agree with in today's society does not mean he was an ineffective General or leader. Also, what is wrong with teaching BOTH Davis' and Lincoln's words and views?

I have to admit that Jefferson DOES need to be included in the teaching of history though. Of course, he is often incorrectly cited along with the nonexistent "Separation of Church and State" that does not actually exist in the founding documents, so perhaps that is part of their reasoning.

If anything, this new curriculum is impressive for being balanced in an education system dominated by those who want to teach only one side...their side.

__________________ Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster

I don't know, when I went to school plenty of what they want was gone over. I'd like to see the textbooks that you refer to.

It's not dropping rap education, it's promoting country and western and dropping rap. I'd like to say one probably had more of a profound effect on today and that's important to learn, whether you say that the impact of it was positive or negative, just like every other history subject. If you ignore everything that had a negative outcome you won't be learning much in class. Country and western was more of a genre.. hip hop was more of a lifestyle, I don't recall learning much about either, but I've been out of school for awhile.

This is merely a way for them to control stuff to their liking. Nobody's praising McCarthy in the textbooks, just mentioning him, which these people want more of a hush hush or a "HE WAS THE DEVIL" tone attached to.

Yeah the Thomas Jefferson point was especially troubling. The separation between church and state is one of the things that separates us from fallen empires (Rome, etc.) of yesteryear.

Maybe this is a result of your school's textbook, but do you realize that Separation of Church and State does not exist in law or founding documents? Jefferson ONLY mentioned it in private correspondence.

It's a giant misconception.

__________________ Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster

Maybe this is a result of your school's textbook, but do you realize that Separation of Church and State does not exist in law or founding documents? Jefferson ONLY mentioned it in private correspondence.

It's a giant misconception.

Well I'd counter that the bill of rights, through the right to worship freely, pretty much sets the stage for the separation of church and state. I mean think about it, if the citizens are free to worship whoever and whatever they want, how can you legislate based on one set of beliefs vs another?

They're teaching some legitimate history that is being whitewashed from most textbooks, I see no issue with it.

Lately, the education system has been pushing the studies of minority cultures, liberalism and completely ignoring anything that the teachers' unions and very liberal teachers do not agree with, both at the high school and secondary levels. They're going to get their liberal points of view in college, on the news, in the media, Hollywood...EVERYWHERE. I've seen textbooks that have a ton on Clinton, but ignore Reagan. They are both relevant and the events that occurred in the 1980s should not be ignored, just as other historical events should not be embellished. I've heard of schools spending more time on George Washington Carver than George Washington. They are attempting to "balance" and "create diversity" when historical facts don't necessarily support an equal relevance. It's not a hateful or bad thing that certain groups or types of people had more importance in the scope of history, it's just how things happened. History should be taught AS IT HAPPENED, no excuses. To artificially place important on certain events and individuals to try to create a racial or idealistic balance for political correctness' sake is to ruin history and teach it improperly. History is to be taught, not adjusted to fit and promote your views or belief system.

Why not teach both sides? It doesn't look like they're eliminating all liberal ideas, they'll be teaching them side-by-side.

Dropping "rap education" can only help the kids. Also, promoting assimilation to the culture rather than the rest of us learning new languages to accommodate immigrants is something that is long overdue.

There is no denying there are unintended consequences from Affirmative Action, welfare, Social Security and other Government Social Programs that have gone off-track due to corruption and waste, or have simply grown too much or outlived their usefulness.

General Stonewall Jackson, aside from his and the Confederacy's stance on slavery WAS one of the greatest military leaders of our history despite being on the perceived "wrong side" of the issue. Just because he was leading the side that we do not agree with in today's society does not mean he was an ineffective General or leader. Also, what is wrong with teaching BOTH Davis' and Lincoln's words and views?

I have to admit that Jefferson DOES need to be included in the teaching of history though. Of course, he is often incorrectly cited along with the nonexistent "Separation of Church and State" that does not actually exist in the founding documents, so perhaps that is part of their reasoning.

If anything, this new curriculum is impressive for being balanced in an education system dominated by those who want to teach only one side...their side.

Funny how the rest of the world has no problems learning multiple languages, why can't we? Start teaching it at an early age and it won't be an issue. I cringe when I hear people say if you don't know the language here then leave. Kinda goes against what this country was built on in the first place. Aren't we supposed to be the melting pot? With that stubborn mentality we're going to be left in the dust in no time.

I think it's a stretch to say that there is no separation of church and state in law or founding documents. If you use that logic, there's very little in founding documents. They're very ambiguous, and were created that way for a reason. These laws are very open to interpretation which is what has made them so flexible to this day.

The correspondance you're speaking of was Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists which is said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I think he makes his idea of what that law should stand for relatively obvious here.

Also, to say it's not in law is a fallacy as well. The Supreme Court used that exact phrase in one of their rulings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supreme Court

The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), where the court examined Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning.

Ok Buster, but exclude TJ simply because of that? I think you can note all of that in textbooks AND note TJ's contributions as well.

This is BS. I am all for more information, but not excluding certain facts because of personal beliefs. If you truly feel like that, be active in your kids studies, inform them of your perspective or even home school.

The concept of education itself is liberal in nature. Not liberal in the political sense. Liberal in that sense that it isnt close minded, restricted in scope, open to questioning, etc. Its great to put a different perspective but a responsible teacher, parent, etc. should always note the counter argument and not portray things as black and white.

That is education, and some of the points(not all) that these people want simply don't mesh with the concept of knowledge.

Funny how the rest of the world has no problems learning multiple languages, why can't we? Start teaching it at an early age and it won't be an issue. I cringe when I hear people say if you don't know the language here then leave. Kinda goes against what this country was built on in the first place. Aren't we supposed to be the melting pot? With that stubborn mentality we're going to be left in the dust in no time.

Matty. Dead on man. We need to start teaching a second language at an early age to children, like 1st grade early. Children can pick up language much easier than adults. Being bilingual does nothing but give your child an advantage. I don't care if you learn French, Spanish, Latin, or that clicky shit the aborigines in Australia speak. A 2nd language should be mandatory in US schools.

Among all those, the one that stands out the most to me (and I assume many others) is not including Thomas Jefferson among writers influencing the nation's intellectual origins. That's like discussing art with mentioning DaVinci, science without Newton, literature without Mark Twain.

__________________You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

Can no one be impartial any more? Does no one take the responsibilities that they are charged with seriously? It's a shame, which ever way you lean.

__________________ "All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Well I'd counter that the bill of rights, through the right to worship freely, pretty much sets the stage for the separation of church and state. I mean think about it, if the citizens are free to worship whoever and whatever they want, how can you legislate based on one set of beliefs vs another?

Yes. While the phrase, "separation of church and state," does not exist in founding documents, this is clearly what the Bill of Rights had in mind when it said that government will neither establish nor prohibit the establishment of religion.

The idea that the founding fathers were strict Christians is bunk. The words "God" or "Jesus" do not appear in the Constitution, as they would if the founding fathers had considered us to be a Christian country. Further, the first treaty entered into by the United States, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, expressly claims that the US government is not based on religion.

Excising Jefferson as an intellectual influence but touting the influence of Aquinas and Calvin is deplorable.

Maybe this is a result of your school's textbook, but do you realize that Separation of Church and State does not exist in law or founding documents? Jefferson ONLY mentioned it in private correspondence.

It's a giant misconception.

It was more to keep the state out of the church than the church out of the state. However the framers of the constitution, notably Jefferson and Madison did offer their thoughts on it and pretty much stated that an exclusive separation was best. That's when you catch the "spirit" of the law. Whether it is actually in the laws or not does not matter, it is very important that they remain separate and it is not, by ANY degree, the major point of Jefferson's philosophies on the creation of this nation, so to focus on that alone is unfair to the legwork that he did. So as I said, legally or not, it's for the better of the people to keep them separate.

How can you offer a freedom to exercise and allow laws that prohibit such? Sure there are some on the books (polygamy, to counter the cult Mormons), but not too many.